BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
If ITV is clever it’ll do the rotating guest host thing to keep it novel and draw in viewers. Presumably they have a sense of who those viewers are though, and if Morgan was a draw for them then it seems unlikely that the likes of Jones are going to keep them.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
A more subtle geolocation issue can occur if traffic is networked via the "wrong" country. I've seen that before with secondary cloud sites.
BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
A more subtle geolocation issue can occur if traffic is networked via the "wrong" country. I've seen that before with secondary cloud sites.
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Which foreigners are going to pay for the BBC website and why?
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I see every vaccine has net negatives in France.
I think Sinovac is the only truly shit one, or semi-shit if you want to be fair.
I think Sputnik shortcut the safety trials - with just a declaration from Putin, so he could be first - but enough people have since had it to show it's ok. Not that we will (or should) get offered it for a mix of political reasons.
BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
A more subtle geolocation issue can occur if traffic is networked via the "wrong" country. I've seen that before with secondary cloud sites.
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Which foreigners are going to pay for the BBC website and why?
I'd assume it would be the equivalent of Britons subscribing to the New York Times or Washington Post as an authoritative news source.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
If ITV is clever it’ll do the rotating guest host thing to keep it novel and draw in viewers. Presumably they have a sense of who those viewers are though, and if Morgan was a draw for them then it seems unlikely that the likes of Jones are going to keep them.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Have you not been on the internet in the past 2-3 years, VPN are constantly being pushed everywhere, for privacy, security and to get around geolocation. If you think they are just some sad IT geeks using them, you are vastly mistaken.
They are dead cheap, super easy to use, literally one click. Even my elderly parents use one.
You say 99% of people won't, except Netflix knows this isn't true, loads of people do exactly this, in order to view content that is geolocked.
BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
A more subtle geolocation issue can occur if traffic is networked via the "wrong" country. I've seen that before with secondary cloud sites.
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Which foreigners are going to pay for the BBC website and why?
There are 10 million Brits living outside the UK for a start. I expect that the BBC Web administrator know where there users are. It is right that they should pay.
If ITV is clever it’ll do the rotating guest host thing to keep it novel and draw in viewers. Presumably they have a sense of who those viewers are though, and if Morgan was a draw for them then it seems unlikely that the likes of Jones are going to keep them.
Breakfast ITV is the most boring programming Evans...
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
BBC is soft power. There's a reason Russia gives us RT.
Its just another unenforceable solution to the modern digital age. You can't geo-lock content, Netflix who has significantly more technical expertise never manage to stop it for long. It only become effective if you employ such strict protocols that it starts cutting off legit users e.g. poker gambling sites who in many markets their licence makes them enforce geolocation to ensure you are in the correct country or state (in the US) and players are forever hitting issues, especially if they aren't on their home internet.
A more subtle geolocation issue can occur if traffic is networked via the "wrong" country. I've seen that before with secondary cloud sites.
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Which foreigners are going to pay for the BBC website and why?
I'd assume it would be the equivalent of Britons subscribing to the New York Times or Washington Post as an authoritative news source.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
Didn't you say last month that there was no chance of the EU blocking export of vaccines ?
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
Didn't you say last month that there was no chance of the EU blocking export of vaccines ?
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
If you are using a commercial VPN to hide from doing really illegal things, you are an idiot. But using one for general sensible security when out and about is just sensible, as you are protected against things like a man in the middle attack (that's my purpose for having one).
A big usage is breaking geolocation and another is to hide their streaming / downloading activity.
I don't know how much you know, but
a) most decent VPNs used shared IPs, so you activity gets mixed with everybodies else,
b) no log policy (good VPNs have already demonstrated in court this is true, as they have been subpoenaed to produce them, and shown they can't)
c) a lot of people doing iffy downloading / streaming, are also mixing it through another service (which I won't name here).
Does this all mean if the FBI want to get you, you are safe no. Does it mean if some rights holder does a sweep of some BitTorrent swam or gets some IPTV service raided, they can easily find and prove in court without doubt it was them, very very hard, and basically they don't bother. They just sweep up all those who can easily be identified.
I wonder if the covid problems Eastern Europe is having is vindication of the idea from a year ago that not having a spring wave risked having a much worse infection wave in the winter.
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
People questioning the safety of the vaccine, when already having some antivax sentiment, is a completely foreseeable progression when the president questions its effectiveness. As he would have been well aware.
LONDON — The U.K. does not have an export ban on COVID-19 vaccines — it doesn't need one.
Instead, the government designed clever contracts with suppliers and made key investments for vaccine production to ensure its domestic population is served first.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
Didn't you say last month that there was no chance of the EU blocking export of vaccines ?
I did.
And I already posted a mea culpa.
I missed that, I'm sure it would have amused me.
The odd thing is that the EU / Italy did it when the medium term vaccine supply is looking much better.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Yup I know the guy who came up with the Netflix geolocation block personally (as in we're going out for beers post lockdown) and he says it blocks 99.7% of users who previously used to change their location with proxies for non-geo content. I expect any BBC paywall to be similarly effective and for a significant enough number to pay for it to make it worthwhile. Netflix can still get the final few but don't think it's worth the investment now.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
If you are using a commercial VPN to hide from doing really illegal things, you are an idiot. But using one for general sensible security when out and about is just sensible, as you are protected against things like a man in the middle attack.
A big usage is breaking geolocation and another is to hide their streaming / downloading activity.
I don't know how much you know, but
a) most decent VPNs used shared IPs, so you activity gets mixed with everybodies else,
b) no log policy (some VPNs have already demonstrated in court this is true, as they have been subpoenaed to produce them, and shown they can't)
c) a lot of people doing iffy downloading / streaming, are also mixing it through another service (which I won't name here).
Does this all mean if the FBI want to get you, you are safe no. Does it mean if some rights holder does a sweep of some BitTorrent swam or gets some IPTV service raided, they can easily find and prove in court without doubt it was them, very very hard.
But wouldn't using a VPN to access a paywalled site for free be illegal?
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
People questioning the safety of the vaccine, when already having some antivax sentiment, is a completely foreseeable progression when the president questions its effectiveness. As he would have been well aware.
The question is, what happens next if the population's attitude to the vaccines doesn't change and half of them end up not being inoculated. Another major outbreak and more restrictions in the Autumn?
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
Didn't you say last month that there was no chance of the EU blocking export of vaccines ?
I did.
And I already posted a mea culpa.
I missed that, I'm sure it would have amused me.
The odd thing is that the EU / Italy did it when the medium term vaccine supply is looking much better.
Well one of the odd things.
Sign that they remain worried because of the short term problem, since the changing situation makes it more irrational.
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
I suppose that in concentrating on the internal and geopolitical ramifications of what he said, we could all be missing the most obvious point: maybe Macron himself is an anti-vaxxer. Enough of his compatriots are, so...
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
If you are using a commercial VPN to hide from doing really illegal things, you are an idiot. But using one for general sensible security when out and about is just sensible, as you are protected against things like a man in the middle attack.
A big usage is breaking geolocation and another is to hide their streaming / downloading activity.
I don't know how much you know, but
a) most decent VPNs used shared IPs, so you activity gets mixed with everybodies else,
b) no log policy (some VPNs have already demonstrated in court this is true, as they have been subpoenaed to produce them, and shown they can't)
c) a lot of people doing iffy downloading / streaming, are also mixing it through another service (which I won't name here).
Does this all mean if the FBI want to get you, you are safe no. Does it mean if some rights holder does a sweep of some BitTorrent swam or gets some IPTV service raided, they can easily find and prove in court without doubt it was them, very very hard.
But wouldn't using a VPN to access a paywalled site for free be illegal?
Good luck finding and prosecuting them.....not going to happen. Much easier to go after oldies and single mums who aren't paying the telly tax and pressuring them to paying up.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Yup I know the guy who came up with the Netflix geolocation block personally (as in we're going out for beers post lockdown) and he says it blocks 99.7% of users who previously used to change their location with proxies for non-geo content. I expect any BBC paywall to be similarly effective and for a significant enough number to pay for it to make it worthwhile. Netflix can still get the final few but don't think it's worth the investment now.
I think he is billy bullshitting it is 99.7% effective...
The best Netflix VPN 2021
Many providers have given up on Netflix unblocking, leading to the infamous proxy error advising you to turn off your VPN when watching Netflix. But all five VPNs recommended above work for Netflix.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Yup I know the guy who came up with the Netflix geolocation block personally (as in we're going out for beers post lockdown) and he says it blocks 99.7% of users who previously used to change their location with proxies for non-geo content. I expect any BBC paywall to be similarly effective and for a significant enough number to pay for it to make it worthwhile. Netflix can still get the final few but don't think it's worth the investment now.
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
People questioning the safety of the vaccine, when already having some antivax sentiment, is a completely foreseeable progression when the president questions its effectiveness. As he would have been well aware.
The question is, what happens next if the population's attitude to the vaccines doesn't change and half of them end up not being inoculated. Another major outbreak and more restrictions in the Autumn?
The evidence from UK and USA is that vaccine hesitancy fades quickly with the rollout. Just vaccinate those who want it, and allow those who decline a second opportunity later.
Great to read that 250k fewer people are paying their licence fee, that is fantastic news.
I'd drop mine except I watch Sky Sports and I'm law abiding.
Hopefully more and more people drop the absurd fee until they face reality and come up with a workable subscription model instead. At which point I'd wish them good luck.
I think BBC has already missed the boat.
They were a world-leading brand that has been left behind by its competitors - due to a management who were so blase, they didn't believe they had to worry about competitors.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Yup I know the guy who came up with the Netflix geolocation block personally (as in we're going out for beers post lockdown) and he says it blocks 99.7% of users who previously used to change their location with proxies for non-geo content. I expect any BBC paywall to be similarly effective and for a significant enough number to pay for it to make it worthwhile. Netflix can still get the final few but don't think it's worth the investment now.
I think he is billy bullshitting it is 99.7% effective...
The best Netflix VPN 2021
Many providers have given up on Netflix unblocking, leading to the infamous proxy error advising you to turn off your VPN when watching Netflix. But all five VPNs recommended above work for Netflix.
He's not the type to do so and has been promoted a lot within his own company so I assume he knows what he's doing. My best guess is that those VPN companies are bullshitting to get customers.
Also, VPNs cost money, proxies were free. That already eliminates 95% of people.
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Why would you trust a VPN provider about which you know nothing? If you were doing anything illegal, I reckon they'd be about 100,000,000% more likely to blackmail you than BT.
Didn't you say last month that there was no chance of the EU blocking export of vaccines ?
I did.
And I already posted a mea culpa.
So when things settle down, what are the implications going to be for the pharmaceutical companies. Will they want to move to countries that didn't impose restrictions, will each country or block want to have local suppliers?
Paywalls are pretty good nowadays, and I don't see why the licence fee payers should subsidise those overseas. It won't stop every freeloader, but probably enough.
Except they aren't, especially just via geolocation. They only work if you use more invasive methods. Netflix know that most of their accounts are shared against the T&Cs and know that people also easily bypass the geolocation in order to view different regionalized content.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
Yebbut... 99% of people can't be arsed, so the paywall will be 99% effective.
Yup I know the guy who came up with the Netflix geolocation block personally (as in we're going out for beers post lockdown) and he says it blocks 99.7% of users who previously used to change their location with proxies for non-geo content. I expect any BBC paywall to be similarly effective and for a significant enough number to pay for it to make it worthwhile. Netflix can still get the final few but don't think it's worth the investment now.
I think he is billy bullshitting it is 99.7% effective...
The best Netflix VPN 2021
Many providers have given up on Netflix unblocking, leading to the infamous proxy error advising you to turn off your VPN when watching Netflix. But all five VPNs recommended above work for Netflix.
He's not the type to do so and has been promoted a lot within his own company so I assume he knows what he's doing. My best guess is that those VPN companies are bullshitting to get customers.
TechRadar are a legit outlet and their article says they tested all and they worked fine. There are plenty of other articles that say that too. I use a VPN that works fine with Netflix US.
There is definitely an element of cat and mouse, but one of the big selling points for VPNs these days if to promise Netflix geo unlocking, so if they don't keep it up, they will start getting a lot of charge back pretty quickly.
As for paid VPNs, I think they are becoming more and more used. To get an idea, you see them pushed absolutely everywhere online...so many influencers are "supposed / affiliated" to these VPN brands, and those associations last a long time. If they weren't getting the click throughs, they wouldn't continue it.
AZ Net "safe" Germany: -15 France: -28 Italy: +21 UK: +66
I actually find it just as interesting how anti-vax the French are generally. There's not a single vaccine with positive safe/unsafe.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
People questioning the safety of the vaccine, when already having some antivax sentiment, is a completely foreseeable progression when the president questions its effectiveness. As he would have been well aware.
The question is, what happens next if the population's attitude to the vaccines doesn't change and half of them end up not being inoculated. Another major outbreak and more restrictions in the Autumn?
The evidence seems to be that the attitude of many does change as more and more are vaccinated. And there are no serious side effects However. Starting from such a low base ain't great. So possibly, yes. Though that would leave the jabbed pissed off. Which, in France, means likely to go on a rampage.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
When did you last critique a woke take?
All the time, lumping all non white people into some homogeneous BAME group is a load of bollocks.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
That was a pretty hilariously un pc statement, from the outside. Even some what might be called woke lefties of my acquaintence found it cringeworthy.
Of course, lumping BAME together does make it easier to tickbox that you are doing things for or addressing things regarding all BAME people at once, which is convenient. Hispanics can probably relate.
Though I obviously have no personal experience or insight on such, admittedly.
It's bizarre, the likes of Enoch Powell said people like me couldn't be British/English.
Some people on the left are determined to make sure I get classified as anything but English/British.
How would you feel about American style hyphenation, such as African-American or Irish-American? British-Pakistani or English-South Asian, as some possible permutations.
Could be worse it was the arsehole lib dems did it to me and I suddenly became BAME
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
When did you last critique a woke take?
All the time, lumping all non white people into some homogeneous BAME group is a load of bollocks.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
That was a pretty hilariously un pc statement, from the outside. Even some what might be called woke lefties of my acquaintence found it cringeworthy.
Of course, lumping BAME together does make it easier to tickbox that you are doing things for or addressing things regarding all BAME people at once, which is convenient. Hispanics can probably relate.
Though I obviously have no personal experience or insight on such, admittedly.
It's bizarre, the likes of Enoch Powell said people like me couldn't be British/English.
Some people on the left are determined to make sure I get classified as anything but English/British.
How would you feel about American style hyphenation, such as African-American or Irish-American? British-Pakistani or English-South Asian, as some possible permutations.
Could be worse it was the arsehole lib dems did it to me and I suddenly became BAME
The B stands for Blobfish? I've been reading this situation very wrong.
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
OK, now it is really not funny. They tried to drag the UK into it by invoking Article 16 and it didn't work. They tried to drag the UK into it by accusing it of having an export ban and it didn't work.
The pattern is pretty clear - they are determined that this be an EU-UK fight, rather than an EU one with companies.
I look forward to the statement about how united they are in taking such action.
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
Lol, what a bunch of losers. They obviously realise that they can't block Pfizer shipments to the UK without very, very serious reprisals so are now going down the spurious law suit path to make it seem like they're doing something.
I also don't know which court they are going to take it to, we're not in the ECJ and no longer recognise it's authority and they'd have an impossible time imposing any summary ECJ judgement. I don't think the UK government will bother putting up a defence, instead just ignore it all and dare them to block Pfizer exports.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
When did you last critique a woke take?
All the time, lumping all non white people into some homogeneous BAME group is a load of bollocks.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
That was a pretty hilariously un pc statement, from the outside. Even some what might be called woke lefties of my acquaintence found it cringeworthy.
Of course, lumping BAME together does make it easier to tickbox that you are doing things for or addressing things regarding all BAME people at once, which is convenient. Hispanics can probably relate.
Though I obviously have no personal experience or insight on such, admittedly.
It's bizarre, the likes of Enoch Powell said people like me couldn't be British/English.
Some people on the left are determined to make sure I get classified as anything but English/British.
How would you feel about American style hyphenation, such as African-American or Irish-American? British-Pakistani or English-South Asian, as some possible permutations.
Could be worse it was the arsehole lib dems did it to me and I suddenly became BAME
The B stands for Blobfish? I've been reading this situation very wrong.
Nope the lib dems pushed through classifying me as bame in 2014.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
The racist royal needs to put their hand up and own up.
At the moment they appear to be happy to have fingers pointed at various members of their family.
Here's what I could believe happened.
Kate really took against Meghan, early on. She could see that sharing that generation of royalty with her was not going to be easy, as she would not accept a second tier role.
She persuaded William that there was going to be a really tricky relationship with Harry if Meghan and he became a couple. So William sat Harry down and - in a way we really can't relate to because the Royal Family is still very hierarchical - effectively pulling rank and said "Meghan will not fit in with this family". I could imagine in the course of that difficult discussion, William said something like "Are you prepared for the press to constantly bombard you with questions about, I don't know, the colour of your children? You and I know better than any how much the press will make mountains out of the race issue..."
Harry stuck by Meghan - and in doing so gave her a partial account of that discussion that allowed Meghan to think they were William's views about race. And that is why it came out from Meghan, but Harry wanted it closed down.
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
It might be, but it worked for Labour in 2017. The terrorist attacks had **** all to do with any cuts to police numbers, but Labour successfully weaponised the attacks.
I doubt Bailey will be as successful, mainly because the media won't be asking the "how could this possibly have been allowed to happen?" question.
The timeline was the other way round, Labour raised police numbers well before the Manchester Arena and the Borough Market attacks.
I read that on the Sunday and Monday Labour had planned to go heavily on law and order but the suspension of the campaign and a desire not to be seen as exploiting the attacks saw Labour pull the plans to focus on law and order for the rest of the campaign.
The Labour leader claimed a link between “wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”, as he relaunched his party’s election campaign on Friday after the three-day pause.
In the speech, the Labour leader also linked the Manchester atrocity to Theresa May’s failure to ensure “the police have the resources they need”.
“There will be more police on the streets under a Labour government. And, if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.”
How on earth did Theresa May end up losing on law and order to Jeremy Corbyn?
Truly the worst possible PM, if not Tory Leader, in centuries.
Hard to tell which is worse, Theresa May or IDS but thankfully the latter never became PM.
Actually the worst Tory leader was neither, May or IDS may not have won an election but neither lost one either.
The worst Tory leader was actually Hague who led the Tories to a landslide defeat in 2001 without any victories to compensate, Major for instance had 1997 but he also had his 1992 win too.
In fact he was so bad I believe you even voted Labour in 2001 (some of us of course stayed loyal however even in the bad times!)
Hague is a great orator and author and reasonable Foreign Secretary but was a hopeless leader
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
They aren't the labour party....
While I appreciate the party political point....I was actually being quite serious. If I am so sure someone is wrong for a friend I will tell them so and abstain from the wedding. (Not sure I would be able to resist the "If anyone knows why these two should not be married speak now or forever hold your peace" bit). Only done it once All his friends had serious reservations about it but went to the wedding 10 years ago. Lasted 3 years in which time she drove all his old friends away before running off with someone. Only one that he still speaks to now is me because all he needed to say was "should have listened to you" whereas he spent 3 years defending her actions to all his other friends and they want no more to do with him. Yes he didnt speak to me for 3 years but....
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
Absurd. On what grounds?
UvdL: "We need grounds?"
I'm sure it is as clear as those contracts that didn't say what she said. Or the command structure which allowed Article 16 to be accidentally invoked.
I think they owe Boris a favour, and want to make him look good.
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
It might be, but it worked for Labour in 2017. The terrorist attacks had **** all to do with any cuts to police numbers, but Labour successfully weaponised the attacks.
I doubt Bailey will be as successful, mainly because the media won't be asking the "how could this possibly have been allowed to happen?" question.
The timeline was the other way round, Labour raised police numbers well before the Manchester Arena and the Borough Market attacks.
I read that on the Sunday and Monday Labour had planned to go heavily on law and order but the suspension of the campaign and a desire not to be seen as exploiting the attacks saw Labour pull the plans to focus on law and order for the rest of the campaign.
The Labour leader claimed a link between “wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”, as he relaunched his party’s election campaign on Friday after the three-day pause.
In the speech, the Labour leader also linked the Manchester atrocity to Theresa May’s failure to ensure “the police have the resources they need”.
“There will be more police on the streets under a Labour government. And, if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.”
How on earth did Theresa May end up losing on law and order to Jeremy Corbyn?
Truly the worst possible PM, if not Tory Leader, in centuries.
Hard to tell which is worse, Theresa May or IDS but thankfully the latter never became PM.
Actually the worst Tory leader was neither, May or IDS may not have won an election but neither lost one either.
The worst Tory leader was actually Hague who led the Tories to a landslide defeat in 2001 without any victories to compensate, Major for instance had 1997 but he also had his 1992 win too.
In fact he was so bad I believe you even voted Labour in 2001 (some of us of course stayed loyal however even in the bad times!)
Hague is a great orator and author and reasonable Foreign Secretary but was a hopeless leader
Yep. His election campaign was dismal. An insouciant belief the voters would "see sense" and vote Tory again. And Europe, immigration and tax. Utterly out of tune with the times.
Actually the worst Tory leader was neither, May or IDS may not have won an election but neither lost one either.
The worst Tory leader was actually Hague who led the Tories to a landslide defeat in 2001 without any victories to compensate, Major for instance had 1997 but he also had his 1992 win too.
In fact he was so bad I believe you even voted Labour in 2001 (some of us of course stayed loyal however even in the bad times!)
Hague is a great orator and author and reasonable Foreign Secretary but was a hopeless leader
Yep. His election campaign was dismal. An insouciant belief the voters would "see sense" and vote Tory again. And Europe, immigration and tax. Utterly out of tune with the times.
(Interior quotes snipped owing to Vanilla's length limit.)
Hague's concentration on saving the pound is noteworthy for two reasons. First, Gordon Brown had already saved it. Second, it was later claimed that CCHQ (or probably Central Office at the time) pressure on constituency parties prevented feedback on how badly it went down with the public.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
My brother was shocked to find out what we all felt about his wife - we only made our feelings clear after they split up.
No, the fact she left him didn't colour my views of her, I was just relieved for him.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
They aren't the labour party....
While I appreciate the party political point....I was actually being quite serious. If I am so sure someone is wrong for a friend I will tell them so and abstain from the wedding. (Not sure I would be able to resist the "If anyone knows why these two should not be married speak now or forever hold your peace" bit). Only done it once All his friends had serious reservations about it but went to the wedding 10 years ago. Lasted 3 years in which time she drove all his old friends away before running off with someone. Only one that he still speaks to now is me because all he needed to say was "should have listened to you" whereas he spent 3 years defending her actions to all his other friends and they want no more to do with him. Yes he didnt speak to me for 3 years but....
The day I started dating my best friend's older sister he warned me I was making the biggest mistake of my life. I thought he was joking (besides I was going to get laid!) until a couple of months before we were due to get married and I came home early from a rig....
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
OK, now it is really not funny. They tried to drag the UK into it by invoking Article 16 and it didn't work. They tried to drag the UK into it by accusing it of having an export ban and it didn't work.
The pattern is pretty clear - they are determined that this be an EU-UK fight, rather than an EU one with companies.
I look forward to the statement about how united they are in taking such action.
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
OK, now it is really not funny. They tried to drag the UK into it by invoking Article 16 and it didn't work. They tried to drag the UK into it by accusing it of having an export ban and it didn't work.
The pattern is pretty clear - they are determined that this be an EU-UK fight, rather than an EU one with companies.
I look forward to the statement about how united they are in taking such action.
Forget us re-joining in my lifetime.....
The message on the bus won't be about x millions for the NHS, it will be....
This is the bus the EU wanted to chuck your Granny under during COVID
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
William told Harry he was making a mistake in marrying Meghan. Harry (understandably) sided with his fiancée as was.
You're someone I listen to very closely on those matters because, given the circles you move in, you know what you're talking about.
But, if that was the case, how come he was still the best man and they both seemed ok together on the day?
Papering over the cracks?
Because your brother is getting married and wants you to be his best man
Surely if your brother is marrying someone you consider to be a mistake you abstain
My brother was shocked to find out what we all felt about his wife - we only made our feelings clear after they split up.
No, the fact she left him didn't colour my views of her, I was just relieved for him.
I personally believe the point of a friend is someone who will tell you the truth even if its not what you want to hear. I told him how I saw her and said therefore I cant attend the wedding in good conscience. He cut me off as was his right but that was amicable. His other friends who though the same gritted their teeth and one by one she burned them out of his life to the point they wouldn't forgive him for siding with her
Newsnight: EU taking legal action against the UK over vaccines.
Absurd. On what grounds?
UvdL: "We need grounds?"
I'm sure it is as clear as those contracts that didn't say what she said. Or the command structure which allowed Article 16 to be accidentally invoked.
I think they owe Boris a favour, and want to make him look good.
I don't understand why the EU want the UK to provide them with the vaccines that are produced here, because their people won't accept the AZ vaccines they've already got.
Comments
The BBC could have been good but it is too obsessed with 20th century revenue streams it's ended up decades behind the curve.
Any idiot these days can subscribe to a VPN for only a few $s a month (and those that aren't, you really really should be, even for putting on your phone to minimize your susceptibility when you ever connect to a public wifi. Its the same level of basic security as running anti-virus / firewall on a pc.)
The trial of Lord Ahmed, 63, who appeared at Sheffield Crown Court under his real name, Nazir Ahmed, was stopped on 22 February.
Judge Jeremy Richardson QC ruled all proceedings against Lord Ahmed should stop due to prosecution errors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-56338380
I think Sputnik shortcut the safety trials - with just a declaration from Putin, so he could be first - but enough people have since had it to show it's ok. Not that we will (or should) get offered it for a mix of political reasons.
They have to be trolling the country. Then again they were when they hired Piers Moron.
Thank the Christ!
They are dead cheap, super easy to use, literally one click. Even my elderly parents use one.
You say 99% of people won't, except Netflix knows this isn't true, loads of people do exactly this, in order to view content that is geolocked.
Which is insane.
Edit to add: What's doubly insane is that even Macron was not questioning AZ's safety. He said it was - IIRC and it was a stupid phrase - "quasi ineffective".
And I already posted a mea culpa.
A big usage is breaking geolocation and another is to hide their streaming / downloading activity.
I don't know how much you know, but
a) most decent VPNs used shared IPs, so you activity gets mixed with everybodies else,
b) no log policy (good VPNs have already demonstrated in court this is true, as they have been subpoenaed to produce them, and shown they can't)
c) a lot of people doing iffy downloading / streaming, are also mixing it through another service (which I won't name here).
Does this all mean if the FBI want to get you, you are safe no. Does it mean if some rights holder does a sweep of some BitTorrent swam or gets some IPTV service raided, they can easily find and prove in court without doubt it was them, very very hard, and basically they don't bother. They just sweep up all those who can easily be identified.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56340161
Whereas the Eu ......
The odd thing is that the EU / Italy did it when the medium term vaccine supply is looking much better.
Well one of the odd things.
The best Netflix VPN 2021
Many providers have given up on Netflix unblocking, leading to the infamous proxy error advising you to turn off your VPN when watching Netflix. But all five VPNs recommended above work for Netflix.
https://www.techradar.com/uk/vpn/best-netflix-vpn
At the moment they appear to be happy to have fingers pointed at various members of their family.
They were a world-leading brand that has been left behind by its competitors - due to a management who were so blase, they didn't believe they had to worry about competitors.
Also, VPNs cost money, proxies were free. That already eliminates 95% of people.
There is definitely an element of cat and mouse, but one of the big selling points for VPNs these days if to promise Netflix geo unlocking, so if they don't keep it up, they will start getting a lot of charge back pretty quickly.
As for paid VPNs, I think they are becoming more and more used. To get an idea, you see them pushed absolutely everywhere online...so many influencers are "supposed / affiliated" to these VPN brands, and those associations last a long time. If they weren't getting the click throughs, they wouldn't continue it.
However. Starting from such a low base ain't great.
So possibly, yes. Though that would leave the jabbed pissed off.
Which, in France, means likely to go on a rampage.
The Sky anchor suggested it was more around privacy - remember the Christopher Jefferies case.
The EU seem to be having another collection Cartman meltdown.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1369782350138212353?s=20
The pattern is pretty clear - they are determined that this be an EU-UK fight, rather than an EU one with companies.
I look forward to the statement about how united they are in taking such action.
I also don't know which court they are going to take it to, we're not in the ECJ and no longer recognise it's authority and they'd have an impossible time imposing any summary ECJ judgement. I don't think the UK government will bother putting up a defence, instead just ignore it all and dare them to block Pfizer exports.
We aren't Bame there just arent that many of us
Kate really took against Meghan, early on. She could see that sharing that generation of royalty with her was not going to be easy, as she would not accept a second tier role.
She persuaded William that there was going to be a really tricky relationship with Harry if Meghan and he became a couple. So William sat Harry down and - in a way we really can't relate to because the Royal Family is still very hierarchical - effectively pulling rank and said "Meghan will not fit in with this family". I could imagine in the course of that difficult discussion, William said something like "Are you prepared for the press to constantly bombard you with questions about, I don't know, the colour of your children? You and I know better than any how much the press will make mountains out of the race issue..."
Harry stuck by Meghan - and in doing so gave her a partial account of that discussion that allowed Meghan to think they were William's views about race. And that is why it came out from Meghan, but Harry wanted it closed down.
The worst Tory leader was actually Hague who led the Tories to a landslide defeat in 2001 without any victories to compensate, Major for instance had 1997 but he also had his 1992 win too.
In fact he was so bad I believe you even voted Labour in 2001 (some of us of course stayed loyal however even in the bad times!)
Hague is a great orator and author and reasonable Foreign Secretary but was a hopeless leader
I think they owe Boris a favour, and want to make him look good.
And Europe, immigration and tax. Utterly out of tune with the times.
A number of editors condemned the society after it had said it was "not acceptable" for Meghan to claim racism without "evidence"."
https://news.sky.com/story/society-of-editors-executive-director-ian-murray-resigns-after-defending-uk-press-over-meghan-row-12242242
Hague's concentration on saving the pound is noteworthy for two reasons. First, Gordon Brown had already saved it. Second, it was later claimed that CCHQ (or probably Central Office at the time) pressure on constituency parties prevented feedback on how badly it went down with the public.
You mean she didn't subject an acquaintance to the silencing of cancel culture?
She's a witch I tell you. Burn her!
No, the fact she left him didn't colour my views of her, I was just relieved for him.
He is still my best friend.
This is the bus the EU wanted to chuck your Granny under during COVID